Various Claimants v Standard Chartered Plc [2024] EWHC 289 (Ch) (13 February 2024)

Various Claimants v Standard Chartered Plc [2024] EWHC 289 (Ch) (13 February 2024)

Model D disclosure is ordered for IFDs 8, 10, and 11 as Model E would be disproportionate at this stage; IFD11 is to be included in the DRD; limited extension of custodians is granted (two additional in Category B), with further applications possible at the resumed hearing; date range for PDMRs is set at four months prior to appointment; employment contracts for alleged de facto directors are disclosable with redactions permitted.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 289 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Various Claimants; Defendant: Standard Chartered PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Disclosure Guidance Hearing (dgh) in Financial List Proceedings / Interlocutory (disclosure Guidance Hearing, Partial Judgment on Agenda Items 1 5)
Outcome
Partial judgment on disclosure issues (agenda items 1-5); orders made as set out below; further hearing to address remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Proportionality in Disclosure, Section 90 and 90 a FSMA Claims, Group Litigation, De Facto Directors, Employment Contracts Disclosure
Civil Procedure Financial Services Law Company Law Disclosure Obligations Proportionality in Disclosure Section 90 and 90 a FSMA Claims Group Litigation De Facto Directors +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Various Claimants

Claimant

Standard Chartered PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Disclosure Guidance Hearing (dgh) in Financial List Proceedings / Interlocutory (disclosure Guidance Hearing, Partial Judgment on Agenda Items 1 5)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to include IFD11 in the Disclosure Review Document (DRD)
  2. 2 Appropriate disclosure model (Model D vs Model E) for IFDs 8, 10, 11
  3. 3 Whether to require searches for 34 additional custodians

Ratio Decidendi

Model D disclosure is ordered for IFDs 8, 10, and 11 as Model E would be disproportionate at this stage; IFD11 is to be included in the DRD; limited extension of custodians is granted (two additional in Category B), with further applications possible at the resumed hearing; date range for PDMRs is set at four months prior to appointment; employment contracts for alleged de facto directors are disclosable with redactions permitted.

Court Disposition

Partial judgment on disclosure issues (agenda items 1-5); orders made as set out below; further hearing to address remaining issues.

Orders

  • IFD11 to be included in DRD Section 1.
  • Model D disclosure ordered for IFDs 8, 10, and 11; Model E not ordered at this stage.